Explored Kafka's intention to destroy all of his manuscripts in a letter to his friend Brod on November 29, 1922, and Brod's paradox of publishing these manuscripts against this intention. In the letter, Kafka specified several works that he hoped would disappear, but he did not oppose others preserving them. Scholars have analyzed Kafka's motives for burning his manuscripts, including Kundera's perceived shyness and fear, as well as Politze's view of the "will" as a paradox in literary texts and fables. Kafka's "will" not only sparked discussions about his personal privacy, but also reflected reflections on the behavior of manuscript archiving and the relationship between literary archives and community representation.

Archive system and nation-state

Through the description of archives in Kafka's novel "The Castle," the connection between archives and nation states is explored. The article points out that the etymology of the term 'registrar' can be traced back to Latin, originally referring to regional file storage spaces such as church or palace archives. In the 19th century, "archives" were replaced by "archives", which refers to the national level archives management institution that carries the function of storing overall social information. Archives have gradually undergone a process of institutionalization from regional to national levels.

The institutionalization of literary archives in German speaking countries

In depth exploration of the institutionalization process of literary archives in German speaking countries and its impact on literature, national consciousness, and disciplinary development. Kafka's contemplation on the act of literary archiving is closely linked to the archiving practices of Goethe, Dilthey, and others, reflecting the close relationship between literary archives and community representation. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, German speaking countries established the first batch of national level literary archives, such as the Goethe Schiller Archives and the German National Literary Archives, marking the initial completion of the institutionalization of literary archives.

The Differences between Kafka, Goethe, and Dilthey

Explored the differences between Kafka, Goethe, and Dilthey in literary archival practice and literary interpretation. Kafka's refusal to preserve manuscripts is in stark contrast to the widely accepted background of literary archives at the time. The article reveals Kafka's complex attitude towards the relationship between literary archives and the community by analyzing his diaries and letters. Kafka once visited the Goethe Archive, but was more concerned with Goethe's life traces rather than his manuscripts. He resisted Dilthey's interpretation of Goethe's works as a witness to his main spirit, preferring to let words perish in flames. The difference between Kafka and Dilthey lies in their different attitudes towards literary interpretation under the institutionalization of literary archives, as well as their different understandings of author identity. Kafka deconstructs his identity as an author, resists literary interpretation based on the author's life experience, and exhibits a modern attitude. He deconstructs the homogeneous author subject through the fragmentation of diary writing, keeping a distance from the truth demands of literary hermeneutics. Kafka's attitude continued into the structuralist movement after the 1960s, echoing the views of theorists such as Bart, Foucault, and Derrida who opposed the subjectivity of authorship. Kafka examined the institutionalization of literary archives and their relationship with community representation by rejecting the Gothic subjectivity of authorship, which is the root of his concept of "small literature".

From the ghost study of archives to a form of 'little literature'

In depth exploration of the political dimension of literary archives in Kafka's works, as well as his reflection on the relationship between literary archives and the narrative of community origins. Kafka's attitude towards literary archives not only focuses on personal authorship and heritage management, but also touches upon the representation of the collective origin carried by literary archives. In the sense of Diltai, the literary archives reconstructed the "immortal ideal image of great writers" when preserving their manuscripts, but inevitably fell into a paradox, that is, the spirit of the national community of writers can only be manifested through the materiality of literary archives, and the materiality of manuscripts must be forgotten. Derrida referred to this tension as the 'ghost of archives', revealing that the basic structure of archives is ghostly, recording traces of writing that always trace back to the writer's spirit.